Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
American GenerosityWho Gives and Why$

Patricia Snell Herzog and Heather Price

Print publication date: 2016

Print ISBN-13: 9780190456498

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2016

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190456498.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 23 October 2018

(p.301) Appendix

(p.301) Appendix

Source:
American Generosity
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Table A.I.1 Survey sample descriptive characteristics

Mean or Proportion

Standard Deviation

Min.

Max.

Age

48.73

15.54

23

102

Female

0.51

0.50

0

1

Married

0.55

0.50

0

1

Youth Household

0.30

0.46

0

1

White, non-Hispanic

0.70

0.46

0

1

Religiously Attending

0.35

0.48

0

1

Republican

0.41

0.49

0

1

College Degree (4 yr)

0.30

0.46

0

1

Employed

0.56

0.50

0

1

Household Income

11.11

4.37

1

19

Recession Impacted

0.33

0.47

0

1

Homeowner

0.74

0.44

0

1

Residential Tenure

12.46

12.23

0

71

Metropolitan Area

0.83

0.37

0

1

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.I.2 Science of Generosity interviewee survey demographics

Household Characteristics—40 Total Households, 22 Spouses, 62 Total Interviewees*

State

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Income

Primary

Spouse*

Total

AZ

3

1

4

Less than $5,000

1

0

1

CA

5

3

8

$7,500 to $9,999

1

0

1

GA

3

3

6

$10,000 to $12,499

1

0

1

IL

3

2

5

$15,000 to $19,999

1

0

1

IN

2

1

3

$20,000 to $24,999

4

2

6

MA

2

0

2

$25,000 to $29,999

1

0

1

MD/DC

4

1

5

$30,000 to $34,999

2

1

3

MI

3

1

4

$35,000 to $39,999

1

1

2

NC

5

4

9

$40,000 to $49,999

2

1

3

NY

3

1

4

$50,000 to $59,999

8

3

11

OR

1

1

2

$60,000 to $74,999

3

2

5

TX

3

2

5

$75,000 to $84,999

1

1

2

WA

3

2

5

$85,000 to $99,999

2

2

4

40

22

62

$100,000 to $124,999

5

5

10

$125,000 to $149,999

4

2

6

Family Roles

Primary

Spouse*

Total

$175,000 or more

3

2

5

Married w/children

12

12

24

40

22

62

Single Parent

4

0

4

Owner/Renter

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Married no kids

9

9

18

Owner

28

19

47

Single, No Kids

15

1

16

Renter

12

3

15

40

22

62

40

22

62

Individual Characteristics—40 Primary Respondents, 22 Spouses**, 62 Total Interviewees

Age*

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Gender

Primary

Spouse

Total

25–34

8

5

13

Male

16

14

30

35–44

13

7

20

Female

24

8

32

45–54

8

6

14

40

22

62

55–64

9

4

13

Religion*

Primary

Spouse*

Total

65–74

2

0

2

Evangelical Protestant

13

7

20

40

22

62

Black Protestant

6

1

7

Race*

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Mainline Protestant

2

0

2

White

28

17

45

Catholic

12

8

20

Black

5

1

6

Jewish

2

1

3

Hispanic

5

4

9

Other Religion

1

1

2

Other

2

0

2

Indeterminate

1

1

2

40

22

62

No Affiliation

3

3

6

40

22

62

Education*

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Employment*

Primary

Spouse*

Total

Less than High School

4

1

5

Working—Paid

20

11

31

High School Degree

8

3

11

Working—Self

5

3

8

Some College

9

6

15

Retired

2

0

2

Bachelor’s Degree

9

6

15

Disabled

6

2

8

Master’s Degree

6

4

10

Not Working—Looking

2

2

4

Professional Degree

4

2

6

Not Working—Other

5

4

9

40

22

62

40

22

62

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

(*) Survey data represent primary respondent characteristics for household. Spouse repeats characteristic.

(**) Survey data were not collected on spouses. Data represent primary respondent.

Table A.1.1 Participation in forms of generosity (in percentages)

No

Yes

Gives Money

44.8

55.2

Gives Time

75.0

25.0

Gives Political Action

87.1

12.9

Gives Blood

88.4

11.6

Gives Organs

57.5

42.5

Gives Estate

95.4

4.6

Lends Possessions

51.5

48.5

Gives Possessions

74.3

25.7

Gives Sustainability

86.5

13.5

Gives Attention—Effort Heavy

54.0

46.0

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.1.2.a Science of Generosity Survey excerpt of 31 causes to give

In the past 12 months …

I Gave Money or Possessions (1)

I Gave Time or Volunteered (2)

I Took Any Political Action (3)

Not Applicable (4)

1

Family and neighbors, such as helping a family member or neighbor, working on issues to strengthen families or neighborhoods, crime prevention

2

Health, physical, mental, and emotional,

4

Adult education, such as tutoring, education, ESL, computer training

5

Children and youth, such as tutoring, mentoring, education, afterschool programs, ESL, recreational sports, camps, 4-H

6

Homelessness

7

Poverty, such as low-income housing, welfare programs, job location, microcredit

8

Alcohol and drug abuse, such as counseling or education about substance abuse

9

Prisoners, such as visiting prisoners, writing letters to inmates, prison ministry

10

Abused women or children, such as domestic violence or child neglect

11

Elderly

12

Immigrant, migrant, and refugee populations

13

Arts, culture, and humanities, such as performing arts, cultural or ethnic groups, museums, art exhibits, public television/radio

14

Animals, such as promoting animal welfare, ending animal cruelty, protecting endangered species

15

Environment, such as recycling, reducing pollution, promoting green living

16

Food issues, such as supporting local farmers, community- supported agriculture, sustainable agriculture, co-ops

17

Community development, such as community revitalization, park cleaning, community gardens

18

Civil rights, such as helping to promote racial, ethnic, or gender equality

19

Separation of church and state

20

Supporting military troops

21

Antiwar

22

Supporting gay and lesbian rights

23

Supporting heterosexual marriage

24

Prolife

25

Prochoice

26

Political campaigns, such as supporting political candidates, nonpartisan political groups, and community groups

27

Disaster relief, such as humanitarian aid, e.g., for the Haitian or Chilean earthquakes

28

Human rights, such as domestic and international violations, including torture, political imprisonment, religious freedom, death penalty

29

Labor issues

30

Umbrella charities, such as United Way, community foundations, thrift stores

31

Religious, such as activities that are solely religious and not included in the above activities, such as teaching Sunday school, leading Bible studies, or serving as lay leaders for ministries, including as deacons, elders

32

Other kind of cause or issue (SPECIFY)

33

Other (SPECIFY)

34

Other (SPECIFY)

35

Other (SPECIFY)

36

Other (SPECIFY)

Table A.1.2.b Charitable causes grid (financial, volunteering, political action, and none)

  • Family and neighbors

  • Health (physical/mental)

  • Adult education

  • Children and youth

  • Health (physical/mental)

  • Poverty

  • Alcohol and drug abuse

  • Prisoners

  • Abused women/children

  • Elderly

  • Immigrant/migrant

  • Refugees

  • Arts, culture, humanities

  • Animals

  • Environment

  • Food issues

  • Community development

  • Civil rights

  • Church-state separation

  • Military troops

  • Antiwar

  • Gay/lesbian rights

  • Heterosexual marriage

  • Pro-life

  • Pro-choice

  • Political campaigns

  • Disaster relief

  • Human rights

  • Labor issues

  • Umbrella charities

  • Religious

  • Other kind of cause (five options)

Table A.2.3 Logistic regression of Big 3 giving on demographic characteristics

Gives Money

Gives Time

Gives Action

Age

0.0174***

–0.00146

0.00947

(0.00548)

(0.00487)

(0.00600)

Female

0.333**

0.130

–0.318**

(0.138)

(0.125)

(0.155)

Married

0.359**

0.334**

0.0253

(0.159)

(0.146)

(0.173)

Youth Household

0.179

0.385**

0.0631

(0.177)

(0.155)

(0.192)

White, Non-Hispanic

0.455***

0.238

0.0932

(0.168)

(0.160)

(0.199)

Religiously Attending

0.127

0.948***

0.219

(0.145)

(0.130)

(0.166)

Republican

–0.295**

–0.102

–0.465***

(0.145)

(0.128)

(0.164)

College Degree (4 yr)

0.485***

0.962***

0.450**

(0.164)

(0.148)

(0.180)

Employed

0.0379

0.154

–0.0199

(0.157)

(0.142)

(0.188)

Household Income

0.0705***

0.0188

0.0420*

(0.0202)

(0.0191)

(0.0234)

Recession Impacted

–0.394***

–0.0813

–0.190

(0.144)

(0.138)

(0.168)

Homeowner

0.195

0.0131

–0.348*

(0.178)

(0.163)

(0.202)

Residential Tenure

–0.00540

0.00247

–0.000915

(0.00642)

(0.00555)

(0.00724)

Metropolitan Area

0.237

–0.111

–0.0474

(0.186)

(0.163)

(0.212)

Constant

–2.370***

–2.321***

–2.004***

(0.405)

(0.366)

(0.437)

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

(*) p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.2.6 Ordinary least squares regression of amount of Big 3 giving on demographic characteristics

Amount of Money1

Amount of Time

Amount of Action

Age

0.021***

0.008*

0.004

(0.004)

(0.004)

(0.007)

Female

–0.0886

–0.183*

0.0117

(0.111)

(0.102)

(0.177)

Married

0.0819

–0.0576

0.1000

(0.126)

(0.125)

(0.212)

Youth Household

0.152

0.165

–0.255

(0.140)

(0.120)

(0.228)

White, Non-Hispanic

0.0739

–0.0925

–0.710***

(0.140)

(0.120)

(0.218)

Religiously Attending

0.708***

0.394***

–0.474***

(0.118)

(0.103)

(0.161)

Republican

0.285**

–0.0637

0.178

(0.121)

(0.105)

(0.176)

College Degree (4 yr)

0.524***

–0.0453

0.174

(0.122)

(0.109)

(0.198)

Employed

0.0276

–0.151

–0.359

(0.120)

(0.122)

(0.243)

Household Income

0.0798***

–0.0187

–0.0145

(0.0178)

(0.0170)

(0.0316)

Recession Impacted

–0.360***

0.0720

0.295

(0.130)

(0.112)

(0.226)

Homeowner

0.0996

–0.122

–0.256

(0.150)

(0.131)

(0.244)

Residential Tenure

–0.0114**

–0.00240

0.00793

(0.00555)

(0.00450)

(0.0110)

Metropolitan Area

–0.0987

–0.361***

0.310

(0.152)

(0.127)

(0.222)

Constant

3.451***

2.991***

2.073***

(0.360)

(0.292)

(0.466)

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

(*) p<0.1.

(1) Natural log of dollar amount modeled.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.3.3 Questions included in full fsQCA analysis

Q#

Question Wording and Answer Categories

Response Codes

1

When it comes to voluntary financial giving, do you follow regular, structured systems or routines that help you be consistent in your giving? Or do you always only give in a spontaneous or situational way?

  1. 1. Follow systems or routines

  2. 2. More spontaneous or situational

  3. 3. I do not give money away

  1. 1 →System (or not)

  2. 2 →Spontaneous (or not)

2

Have you ever in your life made a conscious decision to give away more of your money to charitable, religious, or other good causes? Or has your financial giving mostly happened without a lot of planning and intention?

  1. 1. Have made a conscious decision to give more money away.

  2. 2. Financial giving has just happened.

  3. 3. I do not give money for charitable, religious, or other causes.

  1. 1 →Conscious (or not)

  2. 2 →Just happened (or not)

3

The following are five different methods by which some people decide how much money to contribute to charitable and religious organizations. Which comes closest to your own approach in deciding how much money to give?

  1. 1. I do not give money away

  2. 2. I give spontaneously, depending on the situation

  3. 3. I give whatever it seems like I can afford for a period of time

  4. 4. I decide on a monthly or annual dollar amount that I give per month or year

  5. 5. I decide on a percent of my annual income

  • 2,3 →It depends (or not)

  • 4,5 →Predetermined (or not)

For questions 4(a–e) and 5(a–d), all response options were:

  • 1. Strongly Agree; 2. Mostly Agree; 3. Slightly Agree; 4. Neither Agree nor Disagree;

  • 5. Slightly Disagree; 6. Mostly Disagree; or 7. Strongly Disagree

  • 4

  • a–e

  1. a. When I give money to what seem to be worthy charitable, religious, or other causes it seems that I never end up finding out what my money actually achieved.

  2. b. I do what I can to find out from the people or organizations I have given money to exactly what my contributions accomplished.

  3. c. Finding out what my financial contributions have achieved gives me a warm feeling inside.

  1. d. I have read reports or newsletters, viewed videos, or heard presentations describing the good things that the money I have donated to charitable, religious, or other causes has helped to accomplish.

  2. e. I have had the opportunity to see firsthand some of the good things that the money I have donated to charitable, religious, or other causes has helped to accomplish.

  • All five questions were collapsed into one Informational Scale, such that higher scores indicate higher levels of information about the use of donations and lower scores indicate lower levels of information. Scores at the median of 0.5—hypothetical “neither high nor low”—are recoded to fall on the “high” side of the distribution.

  • 5

  • a–d

  1. a. If I decided to give away more money to charitable, religious, or other good causes than I currently give, I really don’t know who I would give it to or exactly how to give it.

  2. b. I know how to get information about worthy causes, people, and organizations to which I might potentially be interested in donating money.

  3. c. It is pretty obvious to me who could really use financial donations and how to get those donations to them.

  4. d. There are so many needy causes, people, and organizations asking for money that it’s hard to keep them all straight.

  • All 4 questions were collapsed into one Options Scale, such that the higher scores indicate higher levels of understanding the need for donations and lower scores indicate lower levels of known options. Scores at the median of 0.5—hypothetical “neither high nor low”—are recoded to fall on the “high” side of the distribution.

Source: Science of Generosity Survey, 2010.

Table A.3.4 Participation in forms of generosity by type of giver (in percentages)

Selective

Planned

Habitual

Impulsive

Atypical

Gives Money

81.0

85.2

87.0

84.5

61.2

Gives Time

45.6

59.3

47.8

35.4

28.3

Gives Political Action

30.4

32.8

13.5

24.5

31.9

Gives Blood

12.8

16.2

12.5

12.2

6.9

Gives Organs

43.2

55.9

45.9

51.2

37.1

Gives Estate

9.2

9.9

4.8

3.6

2.5

Lends Possessions

62.9

61.3

53.3

59.1

44.7

Gives Sustainability

18.0

20.5

10.7

15.4

8.7

Gives Attention—Effort Heavy

61.9

53.4

70.1

53.9

55.4

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.3.8 Multinomial regression of predicted probability estimates by giver type

Impulsive

Selective

Planned

Habitual

Northeast

0.001

–0.096

0.073

0.310

(0.203)

(0.243)

(0.276)

(0.378)

Midwest

–0.017

–0.210

0.123

0.256

(0.190)

(0.242)

(0.244)

(0.337)

West

–0.093

–0.191

0.180

–0.435

(0.188)

(0.235)

(0.212)

(0.386)

Age

0.012+

0.011

0.026**

0.021*

(0.006)

(0.008)

(0.009)

(0.011)

Female

0.324*

0.425*

0.592**

0.373

(0.163)

(0.186)

(0.203)

(0.239)

Married

–0.258

–0.291

0.088

–0.328

(0.178)

(0.205)

(0.229)

(0.277)

Youth Household

0.162

–0.003

0.022

0.055

(0.182)

(0.205)

(0.242)

(0.302)

White, non-Hispanic

–0.008

–0.115

0.305

–0.322

(0.163)

(0.197)

(0.244)

(0.294)

Religiously Attending

0.137

1.066***

2.490***

1.799***

(0.174)

(0.210)

(0.198)

(0.275)

Republican

0.138

0.457*

0.709***

0.182

(0.157)

(0.198)

(0.207)

(0.255)

College Degree (4 yr)

0.656**

0.870***

1.200***

0.842**

(0.204)

(0.257)

(0.242)

(0.317)

Employed

0.290+

0.210

0.171

–0.113

(0.171)

(0.229)

(0.219)

(0.273)

Household Income

0.060**

0.071**

0.085**

0.123***

(0.022)

(0.024)

(0.028)

(0.035)

Recession Impacted

–0.229

–0.523**

–1.047***

0.104

(0.157)

(0.188)

(0.235)

(0.264)

Homeowner

–0.135

–0.274

–0.088

–0.004

(0.198)

(0.247)

(0.264)

(0.371)

Residential Tenure

–0.005

–0.004

–0.005

–0.003

(0.007)

(0.009)

(0.010)

(0.010)

Metropolitan Area

–0.130

0.299

–0.096

–0.433

(0.199)

(0.228)

(0.242)

(0.299)

Constant

–0.441

–1.855***

–4.429***

–3.926***

(0.419)

(0.524)

(0.621)

(0.732)

Comparison to atypical giver.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

(*) p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Table A.4.1 Survey items included in principal components factor analysis

Variable Name

Survey Item

*

XITALK

EI1= I am talkative.

*

XIRSERVD

EI2= I am reserved.

*

XIENERGY

EI3= I tend to be full of energy.

*

XIENTHUS

EI4= I generate a lot of enthusiasm.

*

XITRUST

EI5= I am generally trusting.

*

XIASSERT

EI6= I have an assertive personality.

*

XISHY

EI7= I am shy.

*

XIOUTGNG

E18= I am outgoing.

SSXPLORE

SS1= I like to explore strange places.

SSFRIGHT

SS2= I like to do frightening or dangerous things.

SSBREAK

SS3= I like exciting experiences, even if I break the rules.

SSFRIEND

SS4= I prefer friends who are exciting and unpredictable.

SSIMPLSV

SS5= I am an impulsive person.

CTRLNO

NN1= I have little control over the things that happen to me.

CTRLME

NN2= What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.

CTRLPROB

NN3= There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have.

CTRLYES

NN4= I can do just about anything I really set my mind to do.

CTRLPUSH

NN5= Sometimes I feel that I am being pushed around in life.

CTRLHELP

NN6= I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life.

FEARCRIT

QQ1= Criticism and scolding hurt me quite a bit.

FEARANGR

QQ2= I feel worried or upset when I think somebody is angry at me.

FEARWKUP

QQ3= If I think something unpleasant is going to happen, I get “worked up.”

FEARPOOR

QQ4= I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something important.

FEARFRND

QQ5= I have very few fears compared to my friends.

FEARMSTK

QQ6= I worry about making mistakes.

*

HAPPY

HP1= All in all, how happy or unhappy are you?

*

DEPSAD

D1.1= In last 12 months, felt sad or down.

*

DEPHPLSS

D1.2= In last 12 months, felt hopeless about things.

*

DEPSLEEP

D1.3= In last 12 months, trouble falling asleep or sleep too much.

*

DEPNOINT

D1.4= In last 12 months, little interest or pleasure in doing things.

*

DEPEAT

D1.5= In last 12 months, poor appetite or overeating.

*

DEPTIRED

D1.6= In last 12 months, felt tired, could not get going.

*

DEPHURT

D1.7= In last 12 months, thoughts of hurting yourself or ending your life.

*

DEPDIFF

D2= How difficult are these problems for work, home, or with other people?

GRWHAPPY

JJ1= I often do not feel interested in working on my personal growth.

PURPACC

MM1= I don’t have a good sense of what I’m trying to accomplish in life.

PURPGOAL

MM2= My life often lacks clear goals or sense of direction.

*

PURPWNDR

MM3= Some people wander aimlessly, but I am not one of them.

GTDTIME

KK1= Long amounts of time can go by without me feeling grateful.

*

GTDVRTY

KK2= I am grateful to a wide variety of people.

*

GTDTHANK

KK3= I have so much in life to be thankful for.

*

GTDDONT

KK4= When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for.

*

RAEASY

FF1= It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others.

RAUNCOMF

FF2= I am uncomfortable getting very close to other people.

*

EMPTEND

YY1= I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

*

EMPDONT

YY2= Sometimes I don’t feel sorry for others when they are having problems.

*

EMPPROT

YY3= When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel protective toward them.

*

EMPMISF

YY4= Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.

STTRUST

PP1= Generally speaking, most people can be trusted.

STCAREFL

PP2= You cannot be too careful in dealing with people.

STTAKE

PP3= Most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance.

STHELP

PP4= Most of the time people try to be helpful to others.

STSELF

PP5= People mostly just look out for themselves.

STNOCARE

PP6= Most people do not really care what happens to the next person.

SELFEFF

W1= Overall, how much impact do you think you can have on community and politics.

BLFWLTHY

A3= The wealthy are responsible for giving money to charity.

BLFXTRA

A4= I only feel responsible when I have extra to give.

SOLHELP

AA1= People owe it to each other to help take care of each other.

SOLTAKEC

AA4= Taking care of other people beyond one’s own family is an important part of being human.

SOLFAM

AA5= I feel connected to other people because we are all members of one human family.

SOLOWE

AA6= People are dependent upon societies, so they owe a lot back to societies in return.

PERUNHPY

D1= I am unhappy about my financial situation/possessions.

*

PERTHANK

D2= I am thankful for my income/possessions.

PERWANT

D3= I don’t have the kind of money/possessions that I want.

*

PERWORLD

D4= I know I enjoy more material abundance than others in the world.

MVADMIRE

LLL1= I admire people with expensive homes, cars, and clothes.

MVHAPPY

LLL2= I would be happier if I could afford to buy more things.

MVSIMPLE

LLL3= I try to keep my life simple as far as possessions are concerned.

MVSHOP

LLL4= Shopping and buying things gives me a lot of pleasure.

MVBUY

LLL5= I buy as many things as my income allows.

MVRESIST

LLL6= I buy less than I can afford to resist consumerism or to help others.

MORLREL

RR1= Morality is relative—there are no definite rights and wrongs for all.

MORLBRK

RR2= It is okay break rules if you can get away with it.

MORLABS

RR3= Morality should be based on an absolute, unchanging standard.

MORNO

RR4= There are no absolute truths about what is right and wrong, good and evil.

*

BLFGOOD

A1= It is good for people to give away to the needy or causes.

*

BLFWRONG

A2= Something wrong with those who spend all money on themselves.

*

BLFMORL2

S6= How morally responsible do you feel to help those in need?

BBMORE

BB1= I believe that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

BBEQUAL

BB2= Givers benefit just as much as receivers.

BBLOSE

BB3= Giving money to needy causes or people means they benefit and you lose.

ENTHUSM

ENT1= Thinking what my donated money could accomplish doesn’t excite me.

SIDGENME

P5= I would be very unhappy about myself if I thought that I was not a generous person.

SIDMONEY

P1= When it comes to giving away money, what kind of person do you consider yourself?

SIDVOL

P2= When it comes to volunteering, what kind of person do you consider yourself?

SIDREL

P3= In relationships, at being open and hospitable, what kind of person do you consider yourself?

TRUSTNP

TR1= How much trust for nonprofit organizations to handle your money?

TRUSTYES

TR4= Most leaders of nonprofits are trustworthy about money.

TRUSTNO

TR5= There is a lot of waste and fraud by leaders of nonprofits.

TRUSTNO2

TR6= Nonprofits are less careful with money than for-profits.

SKRWORRY

O1= I often worry about getting a bad deal or being taken advantage of.

SKRTAKE

O2= If you don’t look like you know what you’re doing, people will take advantage.

SKRTAKE2

O3= The problem with helping people is that they often take advantage of me.

SKRNICE

O4= Being nice is just asking to get “suckered.”

PROBLEMS

C1= I have problems/objections about giving money that keep me from giving more.

*

AWRNEEDS

SSS1= I know there are a lot of real needs in the world.

AWRREMVD

SSS2= The problems of the world seem far removed from my everyday life.

OPTWHO

F1= If I gave more, I don’t know who or how to give it.

*

OPTINFO

F2= I know how to get info about who to give to.

*

OPTOBVS

F3= It is obvious who needs money and how to give to them.

BENYES

BB1= I have benefited a lot from the love and generosity of other people toward me.

BENNO

BB2= I have had to take care of myself in life, without help from others.

BENSTNGY

BB3= Growing up, I found most people around me to be stingy/uncaring.

BENRAISE

BB4= The people who raised me were loving, caring, generous toward me.

IFFIND

IF2= I try to find out from people or organizations what my contribution accomplished.

IFWARM

IF3= Finding out what my contributions achieve gives me a warm feeling inside.

IFREAD

IF4= I read reports describing the good things my money accomplished.

IFSEE

IF5= I have seen firsthand good things my money has helped accomplish.

*

REINFRCE

N1= I have felt great about the good my donations have has done.

(*) Reverse coded answers.

Source: Science of Generosity, 2010.

Table A.4.2.a Factor loadings of 25 representative items on seven principal component factors

LABELS

MEASURES

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

Uniqueness

Social Solidarity

Life Purpose

Collective Conscious

Social Trust

Prosperity Outlook

Acquisition Seeking

Social Responsibility

Personality and Well-Being

Talkative

I am talkative.

0.3868

0.1084

–0.0634

0.075

0.0892

0.4805

–0.1047

0.5792

Risk-Taker

I like exciting experiences, even if I break the rules.

0.0294

–0.015

–0.102

–0.1007

–0.0337

0.7196

0.0952

0.4504

Intrinsic-Control

What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.

0.2253

0.3612

–0.0785

–0.2047

0.2173

0.0414

–0.0942

0.7129

Goal-Directed

My life often lacks clear goals or sense of direction.

0.1569

0.7319

0.1483

0.1134

0.006

–0.0182

0.0494

0.4021

Anxious

I feel worried or upset when I think somebody is angry at me.

0.3176

–0.6498

0.0632

0.0658

0.1121

0.0548

–0.0166

0.4527

Depressed

In last 12 months, how often have you felt sad or down.

–0.0104

–0.7357

0.0175

–0.2191

–0.0345

0.0094

–0.0227

0.4085

Social Connectedness

Attachment

It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others.

0.6527

0.0048

0.0744

0.109

–0.0567

0.242

–0.0363

0.4934

Empathy

Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.

0.694

–0.1101

0.0894

0.0901

0.0398

–0.3063

0.0262

0.394

Connected

I feel connected to other people because we are all members of one human family.

0.5266

–0.0108

0.417

0.0302

0.0357

0.0529

0.0304

0.5429

Hospitality

In relationships, at being open and hospitable, what kind of person do you consider yourself to be?

0.555

0.1587

–0.0881

–0.1092

0.1368

0.0417

–0.0206

0.6262

Values and Morals

Materialism

I admire people with expensive homes, cars, and clothes.

0.1721

0.2134

–0.1914

0.0215

–0.0586

–0.5375

0.2503

0.5328

Consumerism

I buy less than I can afford to resist consumerism or to help others.

–0.0411

–0.0839

–0.3581

0.3402

–0.0271

0.008

–0.445

0.5485

Relativism

Morality is relative—there are no definite rights and wrongs for all.

–0.0811

–0.0733

0.2256

–0.0142

–0.5012

0.3746

–0.3283

0.4377

Outlooks

Nonselfish

People mostly just look out for themselves.

0.0943

0.1989

0.0487

0.6378

0.0007

–0.123

0.0889

0.5193

Abundance

I know I enjoy more material abundance than others in the world.

0.0049

–0.0437

0.0436

0.1214

0.7925

0.0703

0.0044

0.3485

Care Ethos

Growing up, I found most people around me to be stingy/uncaring.

0.1773

0.1006

–0.0345

0.5814

0.2821

–0.0564

0.1227

0.5214

Grateful

I am grateful to a wide variety of people.

0.4559

0.1648

0.0541

0.0937

0.2152

0.26

0.114

0.6264

Generosity Orientations

Obligation

I only feel responsible when I have extra to give.

–0.0202

0.0636

–0.0357

0.1139

0.0665

–0.0627

0.7543

0.404

Beneficial

Givers benefit just as much as receivers.

0.3649

–0.1088

0.4105

–0.0227

0.4077

–0.1348

0.1174

0.4878

Trustworthy

Most leaders of nonprofits are trustworthy about money.

0.0875

–0.0879

0.5164

0.393

0.1176

0.0438

0.0015

0.5478

Unwary

I often worry about getting a bad deal or being taken advantage of.

0.0553

–0.3461

–0.028

–0.546

–0.0062

–0.0378

–0.2026

0.5357

Objectionless

I have problems/objections about giving money that keep me from giving more.

0.0221

–0.0374

0.1614

0.1851

–0.023

0.0773

0.6072

0.5626

Aware

It is obvious who needs money and how to give to them.

0.0978

0.068

0.4536

–0.0975

0.4852

–0.0011

–0.0888

0.5273

Informed

I read reports describing the good things my money accomplished.

0.0556

0.1158

0.7057

–0.0039

–0.0396

–0.034

0.0684

0.478

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price, 2016).

Table A.4.2.b Regression analyses of social psychological factors on financial giving

Gives

Giving

Money1

Amount2

Social Solidarity

0.322***

0.0923

(0.0828)

(0.0663)

Life Purpose

0.0810

0.150**

(0.0850)

(0.0591)

Collective Conscious

0.319***

0.234***

(0.0825)

(0.0637)

Social Trust

0.0189

-0.0307

(0.0830)

(0.0561)

Prosperity Outlook

0.731***

0.222***

(0.0883)

(0.0633)

Acquisition Seeking

-0.352***

-0.0395

(0.0885)

(0.0608)

Social Responsibility

0.207**

0.227***

(0.0858)

(0.0467)

(1) Logistic regression.

(2) Ordinary least squares regression.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income, employment, marital status, having youth in household, political affiliation, religious attendance, homeownership, residential tenure, metropolitan area, national region, and impact of the recession.

Table A.4.3 Multinomial regression analyses of social psychological factors on financial giving

Impulsive

Selective

Planned

Habitual

Social Solidarity

0.347***

0.651***

0.428***

0.133

(0.122)

(0.148)

(0.151)

(0.179)

Life Purpose

–0.0349

0.0689

–0.114

-0.0206

(0.135)

(0.161)

(0.178)

(0.188)

Collective Conscious

0.179

0.405***

0.751***

0.199

(0.112)

(0.138)

(0.149)

(0.223)

Social Trust

0.366***

0.312**

0.485***

0.515***

(0.116)

(0.143)

(0.164)

(0.183)

Prosperity Outlook

0.575***

0.744***

0.811***

0.530***

(0.131)

(0.159)

(0.175)

(0.185)

Acquisition Seeking

–0.331**

–0.141

–0.689***

–0.179

(0.136)

(0.153)

(0.171)

(0.187)

Social Responsibility

0.144

0.492***

0.844***

0.661***

(0.133)

(0.146)

(0.160)

(0.175)

Comparison to atypical giver.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income, employment, marital status, having youth in household, political affiliation, religious attendance, homeownership, residential tenure, metropolitan area, national region, and impact of the recession.

Table A.4.5 Regression analyses of social psychological factors on generous self-identity

Generous Self-Identity1

Social Solidarity

0.684***

(0.0369)

Life Purpose

0.017

(0.041)

Collective Conscious

0.272***

(0.416)

Social Trust

0.041

(0.405)

Prosperity Outlook

0.243***

(0.044)

Acquisition Seeking

0.086

(0.046)

Social Responsibility

0.129**

(0.041)

(1) Ordinary least squares regression.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income, employment, marital status, having youth in household, political affiliation, religious attendance, homeownership, residential tenure, metropolitan area, national region, and impact of the recession.

Table A.5.11 Donation amounts by generosity self-identity

Giving Amount1

Generous Self-Identity

0.103**

(0.035)

Friend Givers

0.101**

(0.034)

Local Community Giving

0.177**

(0.056)

Life Purpose

0.026**

(0.010)

Prosperity Outlook

0.025*

(0.010)

Social Responsibility

0.026**

(0.008)

West

0.070**

(0.026)

Age

0.003***

(0.001)

Republican

0.040*

(0.0202)

College Degree

0.053*

(0.021)

Income

0.008**

(0.003)

Recession

0.059**

(0.022)

(1) Ordinary least squares regression, natural log of dollar amount modeled.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

(*) p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Controlling for other (nonsignificant) web of affiliations and social orientations, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income, employment, marital status, having youth in household, political affiliation, religious attendance, homeownership, residential tenure, metropolitan area, national region, and impact of the recession.

Table A.5.12 Multinomial regression analyses of sociorelational factors and social orientations on financial giving

Impulsive

Selective

Planned

Habitual

Friend Givers

0.86

0.614

0.424

–0.270

(0.434)

(0.493)

(0.556)

(0.644)

Local Community Giving

2.609**

1.666

2.323**

1.796*

(0.798)

(0.885)

(0.960)

(1.039)

National Giving

–1.977*

–0.485

–1.344

-0.581

(0.720)

(0.850)

(0.885)

(1.023)

Social Solidarity

0.328*

0.498**

0.308

–0.153

(0.168)

(0.188)

(0.204)

(0.240)

Collective Conscious

0.117

0.345*

0.629***

–0.093

(0.161)

(0.182)

(0.192)

(0.268)

Social Trust

0.414*

0.316*

0.515**

0.625**

(0.143)

(0.165)

(0.189)

(0.204)

Prosperity Outlook

0.6415***

0.774***

0.990***

0.596***

(0.169)

(0.192)

(0.206)

(0.216)

Acquisition Seeking

–0.462**

–0.28

–0.774***

-0.311

(0.169)

(0.184)

(0.195)

(0.219)

Social Responsibility

0.221

0.435**

0.833***

0.685***

(0.167)

(0.179)

(0.203)

(0.204)

Comparison to atypical giver.

Robust standard errors in parentheses

(***) p<0.01,

(**) p<0.05,

(*) p<0.1.

Source: Science of Generosity (Herzog and Price 2016).

Controlling for other (nonsignificant) web of affiliations and social orientations, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, income, employment, marital status, having youth in household, political affiliation, religious attendance, homeownership, residential tenure, metropolitan area, national region, and impact of the recession.

(p.302) (p.303) (p.304) (p.305) (p.306) (p.307) (p.308) (p.309) (p.310) (p.311) (p.312) (p.313) (p.314) (p.315) (p.316) (p.317) (p.318) (p.319) (p.320) (p.321) (p.322) (p.323) (p.324) (p.325) (p.326) (p.327) (p.328)